AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 721
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BENCH: ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.K. SIKRI
Introduction
This case deals with ancestral property whether it is classified between daughter and son equally or not or the daughter have the coparcenary right by birth in the case where father is died before the commencement of the Hindu succession act 2005 where the daughter carries equal rights as son in the ancestral property.
Facts of the case
A man whose name was Gurulingappa Savadi died in the year of 2001 leaving behind his 2 daughter and 2 sons namely Arunkumar and Vijay and a widow. After the death of Gurulingappa Savadi, Amar s/o Arunkumar filed a suit for partition from the joint family property said that the coparcener are 2 sons and widow of gurulingappa. Thus amar said that the appellant are not part of coparceners because of they born before the enactment of Hindu succession act 1956. He also said that they are married daughter and they received money and gold in their wedding time.
The daughter said that they are entitled for coparcenary because they are daughter of Gurulingappa. And also their father was died after the enactment of this act.
The trial court mandating that the daughters are not entitled for share in the joint family property because they are born before the enactment of this act. The high court agreed with this view.
Issues before the court
1. In above fact there are such issues which have dealt by the court are: 2. Is the section 6 of Hindu succession act (amendment) 2005 is apply on the daughter who is born before 9 September 2005 whose father was died before the enactment of the act?
3. Is the daughter becoming the coparcener by birth as the son under section 6(a)?
Judgements
The apex court said that, section 6 confer the coparcenary right of daughter by birth, either her father was alive or not on the date of the amendment came into force. The main thing is that the daughter should be alive on the commencement date of this act (amendment). the daughter has equal right as son in coparcenary. In the case of Prakash v. Phulavati the father of Phulavati is alive later in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma the apex court clearly held that the coparcenary right of a daughter is by birth as same as son and it doesn’t depend on the father live, either he alive or died.
Ratio decidendi
The court interprets the Section 6 of Hindu succession act (amendment) 2005- Devolution of interest in coparcenary property also came with daughters.
Critical analysis
The reasoning of court behind this judgement that the daughter has the coparcenary right by birth as well as son it maintains equality between men and women in society also the interpretation of section 6 is very logical.
Conclusion
In the old time the coparcenary right is lie with only men (son) by birth but in modern when women came in multiple field of society and present their best in every field and walking side-by-side with men then why we can’t give them their right and also encourage them to give their best and support them or become a backbone financially or mentally.
According to me, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession act (Amendment) 2005 is good for women and as this case says that the women have coparcenary right by birth same as sons, whether her father is alive during the commencement of the act or not or she is married or not. The women have the coparcenary right in the joint family property by birth.
Author: Anchal Vishwakarma
Year of Study: Second Year B.A. LL.B.
College: Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University
